V1 front only to improve performance

odiddy

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
60
Reaction score
30
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
curious here, thinking about the design of the V1 when compared to the R3.

The V1 has to do nearly 2X of an R3, does anyone know if the V1 has the capability (as-is today) to get the range of an R3 at the cost of SA?

Right now it seems V1 has to:

1.)Scan front antenna
2.)Scan rear antenna(in parallel to 1)
3.)Compare scans
4.) report to user

What I'm pondering is... similar to how you can segment the bands and see performance in range and detectibility on Ka... Does anyone know if you'd see further range improvements if v1 had a "front antenna only" type of mode.

I know you can mute the rear, but wondering if you put all of the processing power on a single antenna of the V1 to improve the range.... Then if the front detected a threat kick up the rear after some time.

Defeats the purpose of a V1, but would be cool if it proved to improve range... And v1 gave us that as an one of their "modes"
 

RadarSammich

Evader of revenue collection
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
May 1, 2017
Messages
748
Reaction score
829
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
The v1s CPU is ancient. Doubt it'd be much more range.
 

Tallyho

Premium Member
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
2,345
Reaction score
3,830
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
From what I understand, what you are describing is more closely understood as "reactivity". There are ways to increase reactivity but they are at the margins.

Range on the other hand is more related to the horn antenna which determines the "sensitivity".

Will be interested to hear a more in-depth technical analysis from more knowledgeable members.

Here's a good thread on horns:

www.rdforum.org: Horns , Internal signals, processors and how detectors detect?
 
Last edited:

odiddy

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
60
Reaction score
30
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The v1s CPU is ancient. Doubt it'd be much more range.
I guess ancient wouldn't really matter if you moved the resources to one antenna(given there aren't other challenges with RF design)

The way I see it, your dividing your MIPS between two antennas now(unless they have a separate processor for each antenna), moving it to one should be able to yield some sort of performance gain(given no RF challenges)

What I've noticed that brings me to this conclusion... Is the performance changes with band segmentation..

Assume the V1 wants to see consistent/same signal for a certain set window before alert.

If you could "speed up" the number of Samples within that window and verify the threat is "real" then you may theoretically be able to alert sooner ?
 

odiddy

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
60
Reaction score
30
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
From what I understand, what you are describing is more closely understood as "reactivity". There are ways to increase reactivity but they are at the margins.

Range on the other hand is more related to the horn antenna which determines the "sensitivity".

Will be interested to hear a more in-depth technical analysis from more knowledgeable members.
Good point - reactivity would indeed be a key aspect.

It could also drive range increase i would assume, but that would be dependent on how V1s algo runs in the background(I.e. Alert after you see X number of 34.7 samples within X period of time)

The other thing I noticed is that I think the KA pop for 33.8 is prioritized over all other alerts and can't be shut off.

Think their algorithm probably lives in 33.8 Ka pop or uses a parallel sort of "thread" to keep a live scan for the absurdly brief signal.

Wish we had more ability to turn on and off aspects of the radar to further improve performance(i.e. Ka pop, rear antenna, Etc)
 

InsipidMonkey

Premium Monkey
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Acceptus
Newly Registered
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
4,712
Reaction score
8,195
Location
New England
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The other thing I noticed is that I think the KA pop for 33.8 is prioritized over all other alerts and can't be shut off.

Think their algorithm probably lives in 33.8 Ka pop or uses a parallel sort of "thread" to keep a live scan for the absurdly brief signal.
This is all clearly explained (with diagrams) in the interleaved sweeps patent. The 33.8 POP sweeps are "interleaved" with the rest of the sweeps, so that the minimum possible time elapses between 33.8 sweeps:
bf5ca4ec7333b509af9f3d55adc371c4.png


Most of the benefit comes from turning Ka Guard Off, which allows the detector to alert immediately upon seeing a Ka signal versus having to see the same signal on several consecutive sweeps. A more modest benefit in reactivity is seen by limiting the bandwidth of Ka scanned (and therefore reducing the time between successive scans of the same frequency).
 

odiddy

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
60
Reaction score
30
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
This is all clearly explained (with diagrams) in the interleaved sweeps patent. The 33.8 POP sweeps are "interleaved" with the rest of the sweeps, so that the minimum possible time elapses between 33.8 sweeps:
View attachment 88111

Most of the benefit comes from turning Ka Guard Off, which allows the detector to alert immediately upon seeing a Ka signal versus having to see the same signal on several consecutive sweeps. A more modest benefit in reactivity is seen by limiting the bandwidth of Ka scanned (and therefore reducing the time between successive scans of the same frequency).
This was super helpful! Thank you!

My thought on interleaving this was similar, figured there were subroutines out to check for 33.8 each time... so if code was implemented was implemented for 33.8 on a detector you'd do something like...

Main
Check for 33.8
Check for 34.7
Check for 33.8
Check for 35.5
Check for 33.8
etc... etc!

--- DOUBLEPOST MERGED ---

@InsipidMonkey

Besides being cost prohibitive, wouldn't it be advantageous to have multiple processors(or cores) that are dedicated to each band?

In parallel, dedicated RF circuitry.

So to make a higher performance detector, what if.. You had 2 RF antennas(K specific, and KA specific - forget X) then, a set of DSPs/processors dedicated to the sweep specific area?
 

InsipidMonkey

Premium Monkey
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Acceptus
Newly Registered
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
4,712
Reaction score
8,195
Location
New England
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
You had 2 RF antennas(K specific, and KA specific - forget X) then, a set of DSPs/processors dedicated to the sweep specific area?
Then you'd have two detectors taped together. It'd be massive, and you would have interference between them negatively affecting performance. You could keep them separate, mounted front and rear, but that's just a remote unit.
 

LeoGetz14

Avoiding Speed Traps
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Aug 29, 2018
Messages
285
Reaction score
369
Location
S. Texas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
InsMon good points and great explanation re: 33.8 and sweeps. Alot of technical matter which though I am not entirely familiar with, still interests me.
 

mswlogo

Premium Member
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
3,315
Reaction score
3,025
Location
MA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
From what I understand, what you are describing is more closely understood as "reactivity". There are ways to increase reactivity but they are at the margins.

Range on the other hand is more related to the horn antenna which determines the "sensitivity".

Will be interested to hear a more in-depth technical analysis from more knowledgeable members.

Here's a good thread on horns:

www.rdforum.org: Horns , Internal signals, processors and how detectors detect?
I think part of what gives r1/3 it’s perceive range is higher reactivity.

It would be interesting to compare them moving very slowly to take reactivity out if the equation and compare only sensitivity.
 

johnboy00

Geaux Tigers!
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Sep 6, 2016
Messages
2,753
Reaction score
3,992
Location
Raleigh, NC
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
This is all clearly explained (with diagrams) in the interleaved sweeps patent. The 33.8 POP sweeps are "interleaved" with the rest of the sweeps, so that the minimum possible time elapses between 33.8 sweeps
So you're saying that if I have 6 manual sweeps defined, 33.8 POP is swept between each manual sweep, like this:

33.8 POP sweep
Sweep 1
33.8 POP sweep
Sweep 2
33.8 POP sweep
Sweep 3
33.8 POP sweep
Sweep 4
33.8 POP sweep
Sweep 5
33.8 POP sweep
Sweep 6
repeat

instead of like this, which is what I thought it does:

33.8 POP sweep
Sweep 1
Sweep 2
Sweep 3
Sweep 4
Sweep 5
Sweep 6
repeat
 
Last edited:

mrmagloo

Premium Member
Premium Member
Intermediate User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Jun 15, 2017
Messages
365
Reaction score
249
Location
NW Chicago Burbs
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I don't think 33.8 gets that much of a priority, does it? I too thought that your later example was how it works. Sure would be nice if we could control 33.8 to make sure.
 

johnboy00

Geaux Tigers!
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Sep 6, 2016
Messages
2,753
Reaction score
3,992
Location
Raleigh, NC
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I don't think 33.8 gets that much of a priority, does it? I too thought that your later example was how it works. Sure would be nice if we could control 33.8 to make sure.
If it is the former, I need to change my sweeps.
 

mrmagloo

Premium Member
Premium Member
Intermediate User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Jun 15, 2017
Messages
365
Reaction score
249
Location
NW Chicago Burbs
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Absolutely - However, this just kind of rattles me. There has been very little discussion over what really happens with 33.8 so this revelation spooks me.
 

InsipidMonkey

Premium Monkey
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Acceptus
Newly Registered
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
4,712
Reaction score
8,195
Location
New England
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
In order to provide POP protection, it needs to sweep the 33.8 band at least once every 67ms (or about 15 times per second). The way I understand it, the existing sweeps will be broken up so that it can insert a Ka POP sweep at the desired times (or, as stated in the patent, the existing sweeps are interrupted by an asynchronous timer to trigger a POP sweep at the desired interval).

So taking your example above, it could be something like (ignoring X & K band for simplicity):
33.8 POP sweep
Sweep 1
Sweep 2
Sweep 3
33.8 POP sweep
Sweep 4
Sweep 5
Sweep 6
repeat

I doubt we'll ever know for sure though. The patent doesn't explicitly state how they implement custom sweeps, and VR keeps things pretty close to the vest.
 

johnboy00

Geaux Tigers!
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Sep 6, 2016
Messages
2,753
Reaction score
3,992
Location
Raleigh, NC
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
In order to provide POP protection, it needs to sweep the 33.8 band at least once every 67ms (or about 15 times per second). The way I understand it, the existing sweeps will be broken up so that it can insert a Ka POP sweep at the desired times (or, as stated in the patent, the existing sweeps are interrupted by an asynchronous timer to trigger a POP sweep at the desired interval).

So taking your example above, it could be something like (ignoring X & K band for simplicity):
33.8 POP sweep
Sweep 1
Sweep 2
Sweep 3
33.8 POP sweep
Sweep 4
Sweep 5
Sweep 6
repeat

I doubt we'll ever know for sure though. The patent doesn't explicitly state how they implement custom sweeps, and VR keeps things pretty close to the vest.
Any idea how wide the 33.8 sweep is, and how long it takes? I'll assume it must take a lot less than 67 ms.
 

InsipidMonkey

Premium Monkey
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Acceptus
Newly Registered
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
4,712
Reaction score
8,195
Location
New England
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Any idea how wide the 33.8 sweep is, and how long it takes? I'll assume it must take a lot less than 67 ms.
From the patent: "As illustrated, the POP frequency band comprises the range of frequencies from about 33.675 Ghz to about 33.925 Ghz which lie within the Ka police radar frequency band." So probably about 200MHz + oversweep. Additionally, every 5 or so POP sweeps it sweeps the "POP interference frequency band may comprise the range of frequencies from about 22.450 Ghz to about 22.617 Ghz. The POP interference band is swept to detect and suppress the third harmonic, i.e., “falsing”, from another radar detector using an 11 Ghz local oscillator."

I am not sure about the sweep rate. The patent states the asynchronous timer is adjusted "to maintain the sweep cycle time of the police radar detector at an approximately constant nominal value of 256 ms". A full sweep with default settings is about 2.85GHz, so if it is completing that every 256ms, the sweep rate is 2.85/.256 = 11.14 GHz/s. This means a ~200MHz POP sweep would take just under 18ms, which seems like a long time if it is checking every 67ms.
 

johnboy00

Geaux Tigers!
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Sep 6, 2016
Messages
2,753
Reaction score
3,992
Location
Raleigh, NC
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
From the patent: "As illustrated, the POP frequency band comprises the range of frequencies from about 33.675 Ghz to about 33.925 Ghz which lie within the Ka police radar frequency band." So probably about 200MHz + oversweep. Additionally, every 5 or so POP sweeps it sweeps the "POP interference frequency band may comprise the range of frequencies from about 22.450 Ghz to about 22.617 Ghz. The POP interference band is swept to detect and suppress the third harmonic, i.e., “falsing”, from another radar detector using an 11 Ghz local oscillator."

I am not sure about the sweep rate. The patent states the asynchronous timer is adjusted "to maintain the sweep cycle time of the police radar detector at an approximately constant nominal value of 256 ms". A full sweep with default settings is about 2.85GHz, so if it is completing that every 256ms, the sweep rate is 2.85/.256 = 11.14 GHz/s. This means a ~200MHz POP sweep would take just under 18ms, which seems like a long time if it is checking every 67ms.
Thank you!
 

Mad Hatter

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Jan 21, 2018
Messages
206
Reaction score
282
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
So why can't the 33.8 sweep be turned off? There's no 33.8 in my state and the problem I run into when I run custom sweeps is KA falses (all of which seem to occur in the 33.6-33.9 range). I'm assuming it's due to 1) KA POP being forced ON and 2) KA Guard being forced OFF when you're running "c" or "C". When I run in logic mode "l", I do not get the KA falses; maybe becuase I can turn KA POP off. Dunno.
 

CJR238

-CMS Article Admin-
Administrator
Premium Member
Advanced User
Intermediate User
Beginner User
General User
Newly Registered
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
26,298
Reaction score
16,698
Location
CT. MZDA 3. ALP, V1/RedLine/Waze
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
The v1s CPU is ancient. Doubt it'd be much more range.
Just as the Uniden and Escorts are ancient, they are all based off the same concepts since radar started. Yet the V1 is the only one advanced enough to be almost completely customizeable and fully integrates with a Smart phone.

If the V1's rear antenna was truly something that could be turned off i could see it improve its performance a tad, but no more than what Ka gard or custom sweeps did for the V1. VR needs to do a whole lot more than that.
 
Last edited:

Donation drives

RDF Server & License Fees (Jan/Feb 2019)

This donation drive covers the server and licensing fees for RDF for the months of January and February 2019...
Goal
$795.00
Earned
$650.00
This donation drive ends in

Latest threads

Social Group Activity

Forum statistics

Threads
78,223
Messages
1,163,647
Members
17,994
Latest member
Selahvie
Top